UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAYAN CHERIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain cinematograph films are born to controversies and some of them become controversy's favourite child. One such film is the one with the title 'KA Bodyscapes', a malayalam film produced and directed by the respondent. This is for good reason, even going by the description of the movie by the first respondent himself in the writ petition. We extract the description of the film offered by the first respondent in the writ petition as under:

(2.) The first respondent applied for certification of the cinematograph film by the Board of Certification ('the Board' for brevity) for the purpose of public exhibition. It appears that pursuant to his application, the Examining committee examined the film and recommended that the film be considered by the Revising Committee to be approved by the Chairman of the Board. The pleadings and averments on record would show that the Revising Committee was constituted on 15.07.2016 as per the provisions of the Cinematography (Certification) Rules, 1983 ('the Rules' for brevity), which was presided over by a Board member and comprised of eight Advisory panel members of the Board. It is also now beyond contest that the Revising Committee unanimously felt that the film should be refused certificate since it was not fit for public exhibition. The petitioner, thereafter, was issued with Exhibit P2 communication dated 25.07.2016 by the Regional Officer of the Board at Thiruvananthapuram, which notified him that the Board has come to the conclusion that certificate cannot be issued for exhibition of the film for certain reasons that were annexed to it, which is produced as Exhibit P2(2) in the writ petition. The reasons that were accorded for refusal of the certificate, as is discernible from the annexure, is extracted as under:

(3.) The first respondent challenged the communication and the annexure, namely, Exhibits P2 and P(2) in the writ petition on various grounds. He sought to quash the said orders as having been issued without proper application of mind and without adherence to the imperative provisions of the Act and the Rules. The matter was heard in detail by the learned Single Judge and by judgment impugned in this appeal, the learned Judge was pleased to direct the Revising Committee of the Board to give notice to the petitioner indicating the reason for banning the film with specific reference to the theme of the film and relevant guidelines. The petitioner, thereafter, was directed to be heard by them with respect to his consent and volition to delete objectionable scenes or to modify the theme of the movie as are or is necessary to make it in conformity with the guidelines. The learned Single Judge also directed that if the Revising Committee still maintains that the film is not suitable for public exhibition, then orders be issued stating the objections as to the theme with reference to the specific scenes as is required by the guidelines. These directions have been impugned by the appellants in this writ appeal.